THE DIVERSITY OF AMPHIBIAN SPECIES IN URBAN LAKE AS ECOLOGICAL
INDICATOR FOR HEALTHY AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Zainul Mukrim Baharuddin1*, Lukman Ramli2 and Rashidi Othman3
Landscape Ecology and Herbarium Unit, Department of Landscape Architecture,
Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design (KAED),
International Islamic University Malaysia, Jalan Gombak, 53100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia1,2&3
*Corresponding authors: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION
Urban expanse problem causes degradation of biodiversity, while forest
contemporaneous is experiencing defaunation alteration for the need of
more living spaces. Consequently, the world has just been alerted with the
inclination of the urban biodiversity. Human tendency to ignore healthy
ecology causes the research on urban wildlife to be bawl in these recent
years, which later lead to severe effects such as loss of natural habitat,
fragmentation and disturbance. However, the research conducted specifically
on amphibian as bioindicator to environmental changes is still very low, as
it covers only 4 percent every decade analysis, though many researchers
believe amphibian such as frog is the best indicator to healthy environment.
Momentarily, this research aimed to identify and record the number of
amphibian population that can be used as new bio-indicator for a healthy
environment in Perdana Botanical Lake Garden, Kuala Lumpur. Four areas
of wetlands were assessed and conducted on amphibian active time which
is at night as well as landscape setting. Results showed that six amphibian
species of Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Common Sunda Toad), Hylarana
erythraea (Green Paddy Frog), Polypedates leucomystax (Four-line Tree
Frog), Fejervarya cancrivora (Crab-eating Frog), Microphyla heymonsi
(Dark sided chorus frof) and Fejervarya limnocharis (Indian Rice Frog)
were observed. The highest species of amphibian recorded were Hylarana
erythraea with (n=80) which were found at all stations of Wetland 2 (largest
wetland) and two stations at Wetland 3 (natural wetland), while others were
less than (n=10).
Urbanization shift seems to be increasing globally [7], which is also alerting
the world on an incidental sign of nature conversation lost. There is actually a
significant link between human and ecosystem health [8] [9], but human tends
to put healthy ecology necessities out of their primary concern [1, 2, 3, 4].
As a result, this phenomenon is insensibly altering the aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystem within the urban area. This modification was proven via pollution
run-off, and also changing water flows [6] and infiltration of domestic waste
into water bodies which are now found to be rampant and inexorable. Thus, it
is proven that the increase number of amphibian mortality and their population
disappearance were caused by habitat degradation and hydrology alteration
in urban area [6]. Consequently, the interest of researching the wildlife in
urban area is also seen as a positive growth [36] and got a high potential in
contributing to the better milieu for all stakeholders.
Keywords: amphibian, frogs, ecological indicator, urban lakes and aquatic
ecosystem
UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
Alam Cipta Vol 8 (Special Issue 1) December 2015
70
1.1 Indicator and Monitoring
Most of the signs resulted from environmental detrition is hardly seen and
often be overlooked. A standard changes can be accessed via indicator
whereby it should act as an ‘alarm’ that tell the alteration has begun to happen
at surroundings; [10] and also act as barometer for trends in ecological
resources [11]. Using living things as tools to evaluate the research’s result
become favour among researchers. The technique used to read the biological
indicator is by biological monitoring that uses aquatic organisms to measure
the health of aquatic environment, besides these organisms also active in
decaying dead organisms, which clean the water [12]. Due to difficulties
to identify all the interactions of physical, chemical as well as biological,
monitoring method is used. Thus, indicator is used as a character that provides
quantitative information in evaluating the state of ecological resources [13].
This method is also known for its practicability in revising the previous data
obtained, aiming to make some assessments, to determine the relevancy
of law enforced and the criteria that are being set up for a good aquatic
ecosystem [14]. For instance, Noss, (1990) [15] strongly agreed on the use
of indicator species to assess environment condition especially when dealing
with environmental toxicology, pollution control, agriculture, forestry, and
wildlife and range management. However, using indicator alone will not
really measure something accurately, more variables need to be identified in
understanding the relationship of them [16], thus assessing the other factor
which influencing the indicator is needed.
2. WHY AMPHIBIAN IS A GOOD INDICATOR?
2.1 Amphibian in Scientific View
‘Amphibia’ derived from Greek word means ‘two life’. It refers to any animals
with two complete cycle of life. They are the only wildlife that experience both
ecosystem, aquatic and terrestrial. With their sensitive semi-permeable skin,
they are prone with contamination on both aquatic and terrestrial environment
[17]. Contamination is proven to negatively impact the growth [18] of the
amphibian and the worst scenario, it causes malformed and increase mortality
[6].
Amphibian is a cold-blooded animal and they cannot produce their own heat
to balance their body temperature. They need to depend on environment
temperature to sustain their lives. Amphibians can benefit human life in many
ways [19]. In addition, many researchers believe that amphibian such as frog
is the best indicator for aquatic environment [20].The reliability of frog as
indicator is less argued. The only argument is whether amphibian is being
treated as single or suite [21]. They have a sensitive skin that was used for
breathing [22]. As they absorbed oxygen through their skin, it is believed
that contamination also could easily absorb through their skin. The reason
why most of the anurans are nocturnal is because of their sensitive skin.
Their skin is permeable enough for them to absorb and release gas during
respiratory activity [23]. This sensitive skin also allows them to absorb the
water surrounding, retains the moisture in their whole body.
In short, no matter how, their skin needs to be wet most of the time [23].
Thus, they prefer night time to find food and mate. The blazing sunlight
on daylight can dry out their body. A research shows that anurans skin is
more sensitive than mammals. Based on the research finding, the amount
of molecules (mannitol and antipyrine) and three heavily used herbicides
(atrazine, paraquat and glyphosate) were found abundantly in frog skin than
in pig skin. The test were conducted by introducing the molecules through
each skin[24]. Henry, (2000) [25] agreed that changes in environment can be
detected by some frog and toad species; because of their eco-toxicological
sensitivity to environment. Thus, both type of species have a high potential
as biological indicator that can measure the effect of environmental factors to
the dwindling of amphibian population instead of having the ability to absorb
toxicant through their sensitive, [26] permeable and moist skin; thus the
amount of heavy metals absorbed could be means to measure environmental
pollution level [27], while the research done were still below the enviable
stage. Extensive research should be conducted, as amphibian owned a special
skin [28]. To see the defection on environmental quality and health, amphibian
population plummet is the signal for it, while many of people still failed to
find the reason because they are not vigilant by this indicator.
2.2 Amphibian and Built Environment
Various aspects and factors can become indicator to detect the existence of
amphibian, as their living is highly depending on their surrounding appearance.
Site features like complexity and cover of fringing and aquatic vegetation (1),
presence of fish (2), hydrology (3), pond size (4) and water depth (5) are to
be considered when investigating on amphibian habitat occupancy, which is
only applicable at smaller scale of research [29, 30, 31, 32]. However, Hamer
and McDonnell, (2008) [29, 30] agreed that the smaller size of pond might
also convert into an ecological traps because of pollutant accumulation, which
should be averted. The amphibian is also being classified in certain group,
also known as guild; that share the same environmental resource of a certain
habitat [33]. Although this method of detecting the same guild is helpful
to detect the amphibian population changes in a group, Verner (1984) [34]
reckoned that more research shall be done to get more accurate and precise
data.
3. METHODOLOGY
For the earlier stage of amphibian survey, only one site has been selected,
which is Perdana Botanical Lake Garden. The whole site can be accessed
within an hour with fast walk. Although amphibian can possibly be at all parts
of the park, this research scope is being specifically focus into wetlands areas
at the park.
The researcher first started to make a walk and surveyed all parts of the site
to find wetlands. The observation being conducted on a day time to enable
researcher recorded and drew the detail features of each wetlands. From a
day observation, four wetlands were recorded and it was found that all of the
71
UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
Alam Cipta Vol 8 (Special Issue 1) December 2015
wetland flow to the main pond of the site. For record and data management,
they were being drawn roughly in few pieces of A4 paper on the first visit.
5 x 5 m quadrant, while 10 x 10 for Wetland 2 because it was relatively bigger
than all other wetlands.
Accessing amphibian begin at night, 3 days duration began from 7.00 pm to
9.00 pm. The session conducted at night because that was the suitable time
when the amphibian only came out from its hidden habitat. Type of amphibian
species, stage of growth and the number of amphibian found were recorded
on respective map of four wetlands which was being drawn previously.
Symbols were formed as indicator of different type of amphibian found. High
performance torchlight was being used as aided tool in night vision and for
distanced amphibian, netting was being used to capture unique amphibian
species (if found available). Camera was being used to capture the image of
amphibian found for species identification process later.
Some amphibians were not to be reached by bare eyes and may be hidden,
but the voice can still be heard clearly. Thus, sound recording method was
also being used to count the number of amphibian that cannot be reached.
The voice identification would be conducted by experts and the number of
amphibian at one time record being counted approximately.
Figure 1: The overview map of Perdana Botanical
Garden shows the location of the wetlands.
Secondly, all four wetlands could be divided into few parts to ease the data
analysis. The division made based on few characteristics might become a
manipulating variables to the number of amphibian. The characters included
water quality, water depth, rate of water flow, steepness, type of wetland
edges, and lastly the flora arrangements and species (upper density, lower
density, non-aquatic and aquatic). For Wetland 1 (dry area) & 4 (contaminated
area), they were considered as a whole and no part had been divided because
they were smaller than the other two wetlands. Wetland 2 (the largest) had
been divided into 3 parts because of its physical appearance (type of edge)
as some parts had retaining wall, different water depth, width of the wetland
and density of shrub. Meanwhile, Wetland 3 was being divided even more;
which had 4 parts as some points are bushy (floral density), some was steep
(topographical aspect) and some got manmade edge (e.g. gabion wall).
To count the number of amphibian, the technique used was ‘Quadrant
Sampling’, the standard quadrant was being set in metre (m), in which 5 x 5
m and 10 x 10 m were the measurement used. Wetland 1, 3 and 4 were using
UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
Alam Cipta Vol 8 (Special Issue 1) December 2015
72
The raw data then was being processed using AutoCAD drafting software
for proper and clear presentation. The data obtained being plotted properly
and the data also being processed in table using Microsoft Excel for analysis
process.
4. FINDINGS & RESULT
4.1 Species of Amphibian
Table 1: The species of amphibian and its number
count founded at the wetland.
Seven major amphibian species have been recorded throughout the survey. All
of them are found at all wetland areas with different number and morphological
stage including egg, juvenile and adult. The species include Duttaphrynus
melanostictus (Common Sunda Toad), Hylarana erythraea (Green Paddy
Frog), Polypedates leucomystax (Four-line Tree Frog), Fejervarya cancrivora
(Crab-eating Frog), Microphyla heymonsi (Dark Sided Chorus Frog) and
Fejervarya limnocharis (Indian Rice Frog).The highest species of amphibian
recorded were Hylarana erythraea with (n=80) which found at all part of
Wetland 2 (largest wetland) and two parts at Wetland 3 (natural wetland). This
species were found dominant at the garden compared to other species that less
than (n=10). Other species counted include Duttaphrynus melanostictus (n=5),
Polypedates leucomystax (n=3), Fejervarya cancrivora (n=2), Microphyla
heymonsi (n=7) and Fejervarya limnocharis (n=1). Only one ‘unidentified’
species recorded at Wetland 4, (n=2) amphibian’s egg clump found at Wetland
3 while (n=3) of juvenile frogs found at Wetland 2 and 3 respectively.
recorded at part 1 of Wetland 2 & 3 respectively. Second category which is
less clear water was recorded at part 2 of Wetland 2. On the other hand, cloudy
water was recorded part 3 of Wetland 2 and part 2 of Wetland 3, while oily
water detected at part 3 of Wetland 3 and whole Wetland 4.
4.1 Water Quality of Wetlands
Table 2: Assessing the water characteristic of the
wetlands
Figure 2,3 & 5: (from left) Hylarana erythraea sp.,
Polypedates leucomystax sp., and Duttaphrynus
melanostictus.
Figure 6,7 & 8: (from left) Fejervarya cancrivora,
Fejervarya cancrivora and a juvenile frog.
4.1 Species of Amphibian
Water quality affects the existence of amphibian at the wetland. For the
research, the water quality being measured based on its physical features,
and they are further classified into 4; clear, less clear, cloudy and oily. From
observation made at the site on all 4 wetlands involved, clear water was
Water quality affects the existence of amphibian at the wetland. For the
research, the water quality being measured based on its physical features,
and they are further classified into 4; clear, less clear, cloudy and oily. From
observation made at the site on all 4 wetlands involved, clear water was
recorded at part 1 of Wetland 2 & 3 respectively. Second category which is
less clear water was recorded at part 2 of Wetland 2. On the other hand, cloudy
water was recorded part 3 of Wetland 2 and part 2 of Wetland 3, while oily
water detected at part 3 of Wetland 3 and whole Wetland 4.
4.3 Water Flow of the Wetlands
Four categories have been given to the rate of water flow to the Perdana
Botanical Garden wetlands; fast, medium, slow and still. Fast flowing water
found at part 1 Wetland 3, medium flow at whole Wetland 4, and slow flowing
water at part 3 of Wetland 2 & 3 respectively. Most of the wetland areas retain
water, which classified as still water and not moving, recorded at part 1 of
Wetland 2, and part 2 of Wetland 2 & 3.
73
UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
Alam Cipta Vol 8 (Special Issue 1) December 2015
4.3 Type of Edges
A) Upper Density
The floral line or clump was recorded to become an ideal habitat for
amphibians to breed and live. Thus, flora area has become among a major
concern and act as a manipulating variable in this research. The classification
of flora was further categorized into 4 based on their dominancy and type;
upper density flora, lower density flora, non-aquatic plant and aquatic plant.
The upper density flora was then divided into 3 groups; high, low and
medium. From observation, the low upper density flora was recorded at part 2
& 3 of Wetland 2 and part 3 of Wetland 3 as well as whole part of Wetland 4.
Whereas, high upper density flora was being recorded at part 2-4 of Wetland
3, in contrast to the medium upper density flora that was recorded only at
whole part of Wetland 1.
Figure 9 & 10: (left) The edges of wetland 4 by
woodstick and it is bare soil. (right) A natural edges
with marginal plants become favourite among
amphibian in wetland 3.
Few types of edges that can be an influent factors to the number of amphibian
being recorded and further classified; marginal plant, brick, gabion rock, grass
and bare rock edges. As a botanical garden, grass covers most of the area of
the site, where near wetland, it can be found at whole parts of Wetland 2 &
3. The other type of edge that covered most is brick which was also spotted
at the whole part of Wetland 2. Gabion rock and marginal plants were found
respectively at part 1 & 2 of Wetland 3, and part 2 & 3 of Wetland 3. Lastly,
bare soil was the type of edge recorded at whole part of Wetland 4.
4.4 Flora Aspect
Table 3: The flora aspect that was found at the wetland.
UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
Alam Cipta Vol 8 (Special Issue 1) December 2015
74
B) Lower Density
For the second class of flora (the lower density flora), none of wetland areas
has been recorded as low on lower density flora, followed by the part 3 of
Wetland 2 and part 1 of Wetland 3. Part 1 and 2 of Wetland 2 and part 2 & 3
of Wetland 3 were recorded as high on lower density flora.
C) Non Aquatic Plant Species
Few plants species managed to be recorded by the researcher along the 3 days
survey found at the wetlands. The species include Philodendron selloum sp.,
Costus lucanusianus sp., Heliconia sp., Donax grandis sp., Pandanus utilus
sp., Calathea sp., and Crinum asiatica sp. All of them are non-aquatic plants
and act as site context to the wetlands. All plants species were recorded only
at one part on each wetlands except for Heliconia sp., Philodendron selloum
sp., and Calathea sp., at two parts. Whole parts of Wetland 1 placed four
species; Heliconia sp., Philodendron selloum sp., Costus lucanusianus sp.
and Calathea sp. Meanwhile, Pandanus utilus sp., were recorded at part 1 of
Wetland 2. Heliconia sp. was once again recorded at part 2 of Wetland 2 as
well as Crinum asiatica sp., and Philodendron selloum sp. were also recorded
at part 1 of Wetland 3 and Donax grandis sp. at part 2 of the same wetland.
Lastly Calathea sp. was again recorded at whole part of Wetland 4.
D) Aquatic Plant Species
From the result, it is suggested that a conservation of aquatic ecosystem
through the management and design a wetland should be encouraged due to
its ability as amphibian habitat. Besides the main water bodies which cater all
the input water resources, designing a wetland before the lake may become
a platform for assessing the amphibian species which could be an ecological
indicator for the healthy urban environment.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Figure 11, 12 & 13: (from left) Eichhornia crassipes
sp., Utricularia sp., and Cabomba sp.
The authors would like to thank, Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) and
International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) for the Research Grant
FRGS13-012-0253 and RAGS14-043-0106.
7. REFERENCES
Figure 14, 15 & 16: (from left) Nelumbo sp.,
Nymphaea sp., Hydrillia sp.
The most dominant aquatic plant species recorded was Nymphaea sp., where
it was observed to grow at part 1 & 2 of Wetland 2, and part 2 & 3 of Wetland 3.
The dominant followed by second aquatic plant species; Eichhornia crassipes
sp. found at part 1 & 2 of Wetland 2. Nelumbo sp. was recorded at part 1 of
Wetland 2, while Hydrillia sp. at part 2 & 3 of Wetland 3. On the other hand,
Cabomba sp. was recorded at part 1 of Wetland 2 as well as Utricularia sp., but
this last species was also recorded at part 2 of Wetland 3.
5. DISCUSSION
The richness of species and overwhelming differences number of population
of amphibian in wetland 3 may be the result of healthy aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystem in the Perdana Botanical Garden. Furthermore, it embodies a lush
greenery and more natural setting of the edges compared to other wetland.
Meanwhile, wetland 4 is seen to be not suitable as amphibian habitat because
its water flow, oily water surface and with lowest density of the vegetation.
Unlike wetland 3, wetland 2 encompasses a several number of amphibians
which is due to the existing of their tradition enemy, a snakehead fish.
Pauleit, S., (2003). Urban street tree planting: identifying the key requirements,
source: Proceedings of the ICE - Municipal Engineer, Vol.156, Issue 1,
01 March 2003 , pages 43 –50.
Brown, C., and Grant, M., (2005). Biodiversity & human health: What role
for nature in healthy urban planning? Built Environment, 31 (4). pp. 326338. ISSN 0263-7960.
Tratalos, J., Fuller, R. A., Warren, Philip. H., Davies R. G., Gatson, K. J.,
(2007). Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services.
Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 308 –317, Available: [Online]
5 July 2007.
Mc Kinney, M. L., (2008). Effect of urbanization on species richness: a review
on plants and animals. Urban ecosyst. (2008). 11:161-176, DOI 10, 1007/
s11252-007-0045-4.
Magle, S. B., Hunt V. M., Vernon M., Crooks K. R., (2012). Urban wildlife
research: Past, present and future, Biological Conservation 155 (2012)
22-32.
Lisa, T. S., Gary, W. L., Skye, W., (2011). Anuran species in urban landscapes:
relationships with biophysical, built environment and socio-economic
factors. Landscape and Urban Planning 101 (2011) 43–51.
Dearborn, D.C., Kark, S., (2010). Motivations for conserving urban
biodiversity. Conservation Biology 24, 432-440.
Hayes, T. B., Haston, K., Tsui, M., Hoang, A., Haeffele, C. and Vonk, A.
(2002). Feminization of male frogs in the wild. Nature, 419, 895-900.
Unrine, J. M., Hopkins, W. A., Romanek, C. S., and Jackson, B. P.
(2007). Bioaccumulation of trace elements in omnivorous amphibian
larvae: Implications for amphibian health and contaminant transport.
Environmental Pollution, 149, 182-192.
Dale, V. H., Beyeler, S. C., (2001). Challenges in the development and use
75
UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
Alam Cipta Vol 8 (Special Issue 1) December 2015
of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators 1 (2001) 3–10. Accepted
7 March 2001.
Gerald, J. N., Michael, E. M., (2004). Application of ecological indicators.
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2004. 35:89-111. First published [Online] as
a Review in Advance on June 10, 2004.
Olsen, A. R., ed. (1992). The indicator development strategy for the
environmental monitoring and assessment program, EPA A600391023,
Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Laboratory.
invertebrates and algae of solar evaporation ponds in the Mojave dessert and
relation to shorebird foraging and selenium risk. WETLANDS, Vol. 26,
No.2, June 2006, pp.475-485, 2006, The Society of Wetland Scientists.
Philips, D. J. H, Rainbow, P. S., (1993), Bio- monitoring of trace aquatic
contaminants. Environmental Management Series, Vol. 37 1993. ISBN:
978-94-010-4941-2
Noss, R. F., (1999). Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested
framework and indicators. For Ecol. Manage. 115: 135-46.
Mainguet, C., Baye, A., (2006). 3. C.: Defining a framework of indicators
to measure the social outcomes of learning. Defining a framework
of indicators in an international perspective, measuring the effects of
education on health and civic engagement: proceedings of the Copenhagen
Symposium – OECD 2006.
Mail, A.Q., Bellantuono, V., Cassano, G., and Lippe, C., (2009). Why
Amphibians Are More Sensitive than Mammals to Xenobiotics. DOI:
10.1371.
Henry, P. F. P. (2000). Aspects of amphibian anatomy and physiology. In:
Sparling, D. W., Linder, G. and Bishop, C. A., (eds). 2000. Ecotoxicology
of amphibians and reptiles. Pensacola, FL: Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). pp. 71-111.
Pechmann, J. H. K., and Wilbur, H. M., (1994). Putting declining amphibian
populations in perspectives: Natural fluctuations and human inspects.
Herpetologica 1994, 50 pp. 65-84.
Edina, S., Miklós, P., Mihály B., and Béla, T. (2011), frogs and toads as
biological indicators in environmental assessment, In: Frogs: Biology,
Ecology and Uses ISBN 978-1-61324-667-2, Editor: James L. Murray,
pp. © 2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Halliday, T., (2000). Do frogs make good canaries? Biologist, 47, pp. 143146.
Alford, R. A. and Richards, S. J. (1999). Global amphibian declines: a problem
in applied ecology. Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 30, 133-165.
Sparling, D. W., Linder, G. and Bishop, C. A. (eds) (2000). Ecotoxicology
of amphibians and reptiles. Pensacola, FL: Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). pp. 904
UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
Alam Cipta Vol 8 (Special Issue 1) December 2015
76
Whyzz, (2014). Viewed at 22 February. Available [Online]: http://www.
whyzz.com/what-is-an-amphibian.
Before it’s too late - Croaking frog (Motion Picture), (2004). Australia.
Sewell, D., Griffiths, R.A., (2009). Can a single amphibian species be a good
biodiversity indicator? Diversity 2009, 1, 102-117.
http://www.saburchill, animals which breathe through their skin. Available:
[Online] com/chapters/chap0022.html.
Environment. nsw, page last updated: 27 December 2013, viewed at 22
February 2014. Available [Online] http://www.environment.nsw. gov.au/
animals/Frogs.htm.
Hamer, A.J., McDonnell, M.J., (2008). Amphibian ecology and conservation
in the urbanising world: a review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2432–2449.
Pillsbury, F. C., Miller, J.R., (2008). Habitat and landscape characteristics
underlying anuran community structure along an urban–rural gradient.
Ecol. Appl. 18, 1107–1118.
Parris, K. M., (2006). Urban amphibian assemblages as meta-communities. J.
Anim. Ecol. 75, 757–764.
Root, R. B. (1967). The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-gray gnatcatcher.
Col. Monogr 37:317-50.
Verner, J. (1984). The guild concept applied to management of bird
populations. Environ. Manage. 8:1-14.
Adams, L.W., (2005). Urban wildlife ecology and conservation: a brief history
of the discipline. Urban Ecosystems 8, 139-156.
Sadasivam, K., Baharuddin, B., Sivam, A., and Daniels, C., (2014). Urban
Green Space and Urban Biodiversity: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Journal
of Sustainable Development 7, 1-16.
Baharuddin, B., Othman, R., and Rusli, F.N., (2014). Kuala Lumpur urban
biodiversity: birds community in urban public parks, International Journal
of Sustainable Development & World Policy 3(6), 146-159.